Segregation and Marginalization in Puebla, Mexico

University of Mississippi eGrove

Honors College (Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors Theses Honors College)

2019

The Haves and the Have Nots: Segregation and Marginalization in Puebla, Mexico

Jarvis Benson University of Mississippi

Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/hon_thesis

Part of the International and Area Studies Commons

Recommended Citation Benson, Jarvis, "The Haves and the Have Nots: Segregation and Marginalization in Puebla, Mexico" (2019). Honors Theses. 1221. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/hon_thesis/1221

This Undergraduate Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors College (Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors College) at eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information, please contact [email protected].

THE HAVES AND THE HAVE NOTS: SEGREGATION AND MARGINALIZATION IN PUEBLA, MEXICO

A thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for completion Of the Bachelor of Arts degree in International Studies Croft Institute for International Studies Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors College The University of Mississippi

University, Mississippi May 2019

Approved:

______Advisor: Dr. Marcos Mendoza ______Reader: Dr. Oliver Dinius ______Reader: Dr. James Thomas

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my friends and my family for providing constant support and encouragement during the process of researching and writing this paper. Additionally, I am incredibly thankful to the faculty of the Croft Institute for International Studies, Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors College, and the department of Sociology for the thoughtful and engaging comments and conversations that helped facilitate my writing. Finally, I would like to thank my advisor, Marcos Mendoza, for constant constructive feedback and support throughout this process.

Abstract

Beginning in the early 1990s, the city of Puebla, Mexico pursued an urbanization strategy based on converting the historic center into a hub for international tourism devoted to marketing colonial architecture and developing another section of the city, Angelópolis, as an affluent space for commerce and elite dwelling. This strategy produced a crowding out effect that relegated the lower and working classes to the peripheries of the city. There are currently high levels of marginalization in Puebla that negatively impact overall citizen well-being, with pockets of precarious populations living in zones with difficult social conditions. Though based on a small sample of interview subjects, Pueblans highlighted awareness of multidimensional inequalities in the city related to income, class, health, security, and education. Citizens reflect socio-spatial consciousness that highlights—in variable ways—different understandings of marginality and segregation in the city.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………..………………………. 5

Chapter 2: Literature Review……………………………………………...……………………. 10

Chapter 3: An Analysis of Policy and Legislation…………………………………………..….. 21

Chapter 4: City Prosperity Index Puebla City………………………………………………...… 34

Chapter 5: The Acknowledgement of Inequality…………………………...…………………... 43

Conclusion ...... 55

Bibliography……………...…………………………………………………………………….. 57

Images, Tables, and Figures

Table 3.1: Puebla Laws and Policies…………………………………………………………….

Table 4.1: Overall equity and social inclusion………………………………………………….. 37

Table 4.2: Overall productivity…………………………………………………………………. 39

Table 4.3: Overall quality of life………………………………………………………………... 40

Table 5.1: An overview of Interview Subjects…………………………………………………..

Image 3.1: Map of central Puebla, showing the Zone of Historic Monuments……………….... 23

Image 3.2: Street in Puebla Center…………………………………………………………….. 26

Image 3.3: Plaza de los sapos…………………………………………………………………... 28

Image 3.4: Puebla Convention Center………………………………………………………….. 30

Image 5.1: Degree of Marginalization by basic geostatistical area…………………………….. 46

Figure 4.1: ONU-Habitat City Prosperity Index Scale…………………………………………. 36

Chapter 1: Introduction

Urbanization has come to be regarded as one of the most pressing social problems in developing countries. Projections by the United Nations World Urbanization Prospects study show that urbanization, combined with overall population growth, could add another 2.5 billion people to urban areas by 2050. The study notes that the developing regions experiencing this rapid urban growth will face challenges in “meeting the needs of their growing urban populations, including for housing, infrastructure, transportation, energy and employment, as well as for basic services such as education and health care” (United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects, 2014). The city of Puebla, Mexico, currently faces these challenges. Puebla, the fourth largest city in the country, has a population of nearly 1.5 million (INEGI,

2015). In Puebla, there are rapidly urbanizing areas with polished shopping malls, a gleaming ferris wheel, and posh sections on par with affluent neighborhoods in New York City. These new developments were all introduced to the city within the past two decades. The recent introduction of German car companies, such as Volkswagen and Audi, has stirred economic interest in Puebla

(Mexico Now, 2018). At face value, the city seems to be an exemplary symbol of how Mexico has used international business and heavy industrialization to modernize cities.

There have been, however, social consequences to quick modernization. The city of

Puebla is characterized by a stark pattern of segregation. The social and economic barriers between respective income levels are physically present within the city’s limits. The problem of segregation in the city is aggravated by the income inequality that persists within the state.

According to the annual report on the situation of poverty and social risk, approximately two-thirds of the state’s population live below the poverty line (CONEVAL, 2012).

Due to this inequality gap, Puebla has become starkly segregated, with the impoverished forced to the fringes of the city (Schteingart, 2013). This study concentrates on not only the societal effects of this income segregation (specifically that affecting the urban poor), but also the way in which government policies at the local, state, and national level have helped generate the stark segregation seen today. It is critically important to assess the societal effects that income-based segregation has on the city—whether where you live in the city is a crucial determinant of overall welfare, including outcomes associated with health, education, employment, and personal security. It is equally important to recognize that many social problems that affect the large percentage of Puebla residents potentially derives from laws and public policies.

Research question

Many studies have confirmed patterns of socioeconomic division and spatial segregation in over 100 cities across Latin America (Telles 1995, Hoffman 2003, Amarante 2008). These patterns have shown that low-income and “informally employed households” tend to live in the areas outside of the city center, while those of high-income and formally employed households are concentrated in the center (Monkkonen 2010). In terms of the situation in urban Mexico, in the past few decades a number of studies have been conducted on the sociocultural dimensions of urban industrialization. In a 2013 study, Bayon argues urban inequality undermines social cohesion and the experience of citizenship in the capital (Bayón 2013). Most studies have focused on Mexico City (Aguilar 2013). Segregation in Puebla, however, has not gone unnoticed. Various state-based news outlets have published articles on the social effects of the

displacement and segregation of the poor in the city (Páez 2013, Llorame 2017). Nevertheless, less academic attention has been focused on Puebla.

Focusing on the city of Puebla, this research paper asks: what are the legal contexts and social consequences of spatial segregation? In this thesis, I break this main question into three major sub-questions. First, how have municipal development initiatives become factors in the segregation of the city? Second, what are the impacts of segregation and marginalization on overall citizen well-being in the city? Third, what are the perceptions of segregation by residents of Puebla?

This research paper addresses Puebla but is pertinent to the developing international landscape. In 2012, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs argued in a report that social cohesion is the “glue that holds a society together”, and is built by the coming together of three different values: social inclusion, social capital and social mobility (UN 2012).

With accelerating development in many parts of the world, it is important to protect societies against the “haves-and-have nots” phenomena: social and economic segregation.

Argument

The initial chapter of this research focuses on how governmental policies have affected the spatial segregation and marginalization of the poor in Puebla. I argue that the urbanization strategies based on increasing international tourism produced a crowding out effect that relegated lower and working classes to the peripheries of the city. In the latter half of the study, I question the consequences of spatial segregation on the population. The high levels of marginalization in

Puebla have produced pockets of populations living in zones with difficult social conditions.

Through interview subject data, individuals living in Puebla have awareness of multidimensional inequalities in the city related to income, class, health, security, and education.

Methodology

The methodology in this study contains three parts. This study utilizes a mixed methodology based on statistical data, legal and policy documents, and interviews. First is a legal analysis in which different laws and policies are discussed. The following section is an analysis of quantitative data on urban living outcomes. The final section analyzes the acknowledgement of segregation through interviews with six subjects.

First is a historical analysis of the impacts of laws and policies pertinent to Puebla; specifically, the laws and policies that Pubelan lawmakers have passed in the last century that deal with the city’s layout and economic development. What I am most concerned with, however, is how these laws and policies have impacted the segregation of the city. This is done by an analysis of laws concerning housing, city zoning, tourism, and development. For example,

I examine the Partial Program of Urban Development that came to modernize a section of the city, impacting the informal and formal economy in the city.

The next section analyzes the consequences of the segregation that is seen in Puebla. This will be done primarily through a quantitative analysis of data gathered by the United Nations

City Prosperity Index.

In addition to this quantitative analysis section, the following section analyzes interviews conducted during my semester exchange in Puebla. These IRB-approved interviews with six subjects are analyzed for the recognition of marginalization and inequality—specifically, the

ways that the subjects, based on their location within the city, acknowledge inequality in regards to health, education, employment, and personal security.

Research Agenda

This thesis contains three empirical chapters. In the first chapter I analyze the local, state, and federal laws that affect the city pertaining specifically with those policies that impact the city’s development. The second chapter will look at an overview of the social consequences that segregation has on the city’s population through a 2018 study of Puebla City conducted by the

United Nations City Prosperity Index. The final chapter looks at the on-the-ground effects of the marginalization of Puebla through analysis of interviews conducted in Puebla City.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

This study examines the legal contexts and social consequences of spatial segregation in

Puebla, Mexico. This research looks to encounter connections between apparent divisions in the city’s social makeup and the policies that have come about in the face of increased development.

Indeed, residential segregation by income has become a stark feature of many cities that have experienced rapid economic growth (Watson et. al 2006:1). The present study aims to answer the question: what similar patterns are seen in Puebla? To understand this problem, I draw upon the scholarly literature relevant to: 1) the legal history of Mexico; 2) the socio-political history of

Puebla; 3) theories of urbanization, space, and capital; and 4) theories of power, marginalization and segregation. In the first two sections I present a brief historical background to the city, state, and country: first, history of Mexico and the transformation of politics and economics in the state of Puebla since independence; second, a historical overview of the city of Puebla and current culture. In the third section, I examine current theories of urbanization, space, and capital to be used in connection with the present study. In the fourth section, I review how theories of power, marginalization, and segregation have emerged and relate to the socio-spatial outlook of Puebla.

Finally, I position my argument as a contribution to this scholarship.

Mexico: Law, Politics, Economy

Decades after independence in 1810, Mexico saw rapid growth stimulated by decisive foreign investment. This was also a time that the ideals of nationhood was solidified in the country. The nationalists of the time viewed Mexico as “the successor state not only to the

Spanish colonial Viceroyalty of New Spain but also to the Aztec Empire” (Hamnett, 2006, 3).

After the 1846 defeat in the War with the United States—a defining moment in the economic and social landscape of the country— the country faced a severe loss of hegemonic power. Today the

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed in 1848, is still regarded as a significant event. It confirmed the “shift in the balance of power within the North American continent in favor of the United

States” (Hamnett, 2006, 7).

The late nineteenth century brought new social conflicts due to economic policy. Porfirio

Díaz, elected to the presidency in 1876, worked to consolidate the liberal reforms of the previous decades. The state opted to promote market production and private investment, domestic and foreign (Tutino, 2018, 262). These policies succeeded in the privatization of public and community lands. Many of the lands that held family crops were privatized by 1880, “with or without formal titles. Due to this loss of land, stratification deepened while those at the top gained land and profit” (Tutino, 2018, 263).

Following these reforms Mexico saw sustained economic advances due to favorable international and domestic issues. While the 1910 Revolution introduced popular socialist elements (agrarian reform, labor legislation, education expansion), the country also underwent capitalist industrial development. The economic sphere of the country transformed during this period with the expansion of National industries. The Mexican state attained world stature through acts such as the nationalization of the railroad system and the expropriation of petroleum in 1938 (de la Pena, 1982, 22). This provided the stage to which the state could redefine itself to domestic and international audiences.

The positive attitude towards progressive development was purposely crafted during this period. In 1952, President Miguel Alemán drew on development concerns in the creation of a project to advance the Mexican economy while solidifying the power of the ruling-party (PRI).

He did so by initiating the Campaign for Economic Recovery (Campaña de Recuperación Económica). The key components of this campaign were national economic independence and collective social welfare. He proposed to “incorporate fifteen million Mexicans into the economic life of the nation” (Gauss, 2012, 3). The working class transitioned from predominantly rural conditions to largely urban. This period was marked by optimism that the country had “emerged from the blight of underdevelopment and was on the road to peace and prosperity” (Hamnett, 2006, 249). However, the capitalist route of development was combined with the elimination of “the most radical aspects of the Mexican Revolution…to initiate an epoch of industrialization with the help of foreign investment” (de la Pena, 1982, 23).

The period following 1982 is key in contemporary Mexican economic history. This period saw a fall of the gilded Mexican economy of the previous decades. The debt crisis of 1982 marked the beginnings of an economic reorganization based on neoliberal ideology. An important feature of this ideology involved surrendering employment and income to market forces (Laurell, 2015, 320). On January 1, 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect. This treaty has the goals of promoting the “free flow of goods, investment, and services within the new North American bloc over a period of fifteen years.” There have been various assessments of the costs and benefits that the Mexican state has seen in the NAFTA period (Wise, 2009, 23). Additionally, there is recognition of the unsatisfied needs that have

risen since the 1980s due to the increase in poverty and concentration of income and wealth

(Laurell, 2015, 344).

Puebla: History, Culture, Politics

There are various accounts of the exact reason, time, and placement of the city of

Puebla’s foundation. However, it is fairly certain that thirty Spanish settlers from Mexico City ventured to the southeastern side of the Popocatepetl mountain range to establish the new town in 1531. The city was envisioned to “stand apart from the rest of new Spain in its rejection of the exploitative encomienda system.” The city’s founder wished to craft a new model of urban development which would be based on the self-sufficient labor of the Spanish rather than the forced labor of the indigenous. This model, considered quite difficult to accomplish, required the physical separation of Spanish and indigenous populations. The envisioned system did not have success. There was a second founding in 1532, but the colonizers continued to depend on enslaved labor (Sierra Silva, 2018, 23-27).

Over centuries, the Puebla de los Angeles has grown into one of the largest cities in the country with a bustling industry. This is due largely to the textile industry established in the state in the nineteenth century. The city’s first mechanized textile factory was founded in 1835 and has played a key role in expanding the economy since. For more than 80 years, Pueblan textile industrialists came to dominate the industry and owned a majority of the large- and medium-sized factories of the region. Consequently, these industrialists held significant autonomy over local labor relations. Many provided housing for workers, thus exerting control both inside and outside the factory walls (Gauss, 2012, 135).

Beginning in the early 20th century, as fears of the revolution grew so did fears of labor organizing. In 1917, a principal labor organization converted itself into a full union, named the

Federación de Sindicatos. In a stand against the union, textile owners united and closed all 40 textile mills beginning in March 1918. Due to this, workers and their families struggled to live.

Workers were ejected from factory housing. Landlords and storekeepers were pressured to deny them credit. Fifteen percent of the textile labor force migrated to other states (LaFrance, 2003,

171).

The business sector of Puebla since then has continued to exert its power. In the late

1980s, then governor Piña Olaya launched a repressive campaign against street-vendors in the city of Puebla. This attack hoped to build support among the merchant sector. However, by 1991, this support faded. Nearly one thousand local businesses declared a strike against the state government citing its failure to “satisfactorily resolve the street-vendor problem” (Snyder, 2001,

165).

In the mid-1980s, the Pueblan municipal government carried out commercial decentralization, building a set of peripheral markets in the northeast area of the city. At the end of the same decade, a central bus station was built, concentrating 28 bus lines whose terminals were previously located in the center. This caused disorder, congestion, commercial conflicts in the heart of the city (Becerra, 2006, 7). These actions impacted the operation of factories in the area of the historic center causing the departure of warehouses and motels and even street vendors who occupied large areas of historical Center. Consequently, the area went largely unused and was at the mercy of deterioration (Becerra, 2006, 9).

By the 1990s, Puebla had come to house another large industry: automobiles. The

1994/1995 economic crisis of Mexico had an impact on both this sector and the surviving textile industry. Particularly affected by this were poorer segments of the population. Due to lack of effective government and administrative support, poorer households suffered greatly during the economic crisis (Fuchs, 2001, 1).

Theories of Urbanization, Space, and Capital

Saskia Sassen addresses the implications of globalization on cities. Sassen writes,

“Global cities around the world are the terrain where a multiplicity of globalization processes assume concrete, localized forms” (Sassen, 2001, 29). These forms, however, are not always positive. The increased interaction of global actors bring to the forefront insecurities within cities. The growing inequalities between “highly provisioned and profoundly disadvantaged sectors and spaces of the city” are highlighted, and, hence, brings up questions of power and inequality (Sassen, 2001, 40).

David Harvey considers the task of creating a just city space, free from any type of marginalization. However, in “The Right to the City” he states, “the sheer pace and chaotic forms of urbanization throughout the world have made it hard to reflect on the nature of this task” (Harvey, 2003, 1). This has been aggravated by the society in which we have constructed where “each form of government enacts the laws with a view to its own advantage” (Koch, 2005,

102). Harvey argues that socio political spaces are now dominated by the accumulation of capital through market exchange. Market exchange in turn produces uneven spatial growth and development that consolidates inequalities in the built environment.

Harvey further develops this theory in Spaces of Hope. In this, Harvey takes on globalization and the uneven geographical development that came with the rapid encroachment of neoliberal capitalism in the late twentieth century. According to Harvey, the severe inequality seen in many developed countries has intensified. He notes, “the globe never has been a level playing field upon which capital accumulation could play out its destiny” (Harvey, 2000, 33).

This paper concerns the effects of globalization on urbanization and space through monopolizing cultural capital. According to Bourdieu cultural capital is characterized as the things and privileges that come to dominate a certain culture. This form of capital is also intrinsically tied to economic capital, which is “immediately and directly convertible into money and may be institutionalized in the form of property rights” (Bourdieu, 1986, 47). David Harvey theorizes that cultural capital has become a sort of commodity due to globalization. He argues that, because of capitalist globalization, local economic development focuses on marketing cultural meanings and aesthetic values. In turn, groups can form territorial monopolies on land from which monopoly rent can be extracted from that “unique and non-replicable” item (Harvey,

2001, 394). Marcos Mendoza expands on how tourism itself can operate as a form of rentier capitalism. As destinations are branded with exclusive identities, public and private actors work together to form symbolic monopolies. He conceptualizes that the tourism industry “develops a rentier operation through its subsidiary ability to monopolize access to consumer spaces”

(Mendoza, 2018, 12).

Power, Marginalization, and Segregation

Marginalization is defined as the “minimal access to institutional means to accomplish cultural goals” (Lassiter et al, 2018, 1). Marginalized populations might confront barriers to education, healthcare, security and employment. In the study, “Diversity and Resistance to

Change”, it was found that if a culture is highly resistant to change and culturally tight-knit, then those groups that have least in common with the larger dominant group are most likely to be marginalized (Lassiter et al, 2018, 1).

One key work on marginality within cities is Jane Jacobs’ 1961 work, The Death and Life of Great American Cities. In this work, Jane Jacobs confronts this phenomena from the perspective of cities in the United States. This paper looks to utilize Jacobs’ theory of “crowding out”. According to Jacobs, a city’s social diversity grows due to increased economic opportunity and economic attraction. Eventually, though, rival users of that same space are crowded out due to the “such low economic return for the land they occupy” (Jacobs, 1961, 251). She notes that those “who get marked with the planners' hex signs are pushed about, expropriated, and uprooted much as if they were the subjects of a conquering power” (Jacobs, 1961, 5). This paper examines how rival, low income users of city space in Puebla were crowded out in the city’s interest of increased economic return.

Another key theory of marginality comes from Richard Rothstein in The Color of Law in the context of racial segregation. Rothstein supports his theory that racially exclusive housing in the country was a “nationwide project of the federal government in the twentieth century”. For centuries, explicit laws, federal regulations, and government practices came together to perpetuate a system of segregation and marginalization based on race. He notes that while

private, de facto discrimination was also a key factor, this was not the main stimulus of segregation (Rothstein, 2017, 7). Rothstein’s theory of segregation is based on a myth that segregation was “created by accident or by undefined private prejudices…in people’s hearts”

(Rothstein, 2017, 7). This paper looks to apply a similar methodology in looking at the laws, state regulations, and government practices pertaining to Puebla City that have resulted in segregation and marginalization.

While segregation and marginalization in the United States generally manifests in the form of racial discrimination, authors have noted that in Latin America there exists segregation by income (Monkkonen 2012, Sabatini 2006). In a study of spatial social segregation of Latin

American cities, Francisco Sabatini found that Latin American cities exhibit a pattern of residential segregation similar to the compact European city model. The central areas of these cities concentrate groups of the higher social scale. This high social class also reflects on the surrounding architecture. Cities then decline “socially and physically” towards the periphery

(Sabatini, 2006, 3). This is a phenomena that has been identified across Mexican cities. Paavo

Monkkonen’s 2011 study across over 100 Mexican cities found that “low-income and informally employed households” tend to live in the peripheries of the city, while high-income households concentrate in the centers. Monkkonen also found a significant relationship between segregation by income and city size. Larger cities are more segregated (Monkkonen, 2012, 125).

Social inequalities prove harmful to those who are marginalized. Studies have shown that poor and minority groups attend inferior educational institutions, suffer more disease and earlier death, endure more crime and violence, accrue less wealth, and find fewer job opportunities when segregated in neighborhoods apart from more advantaged groups (Peterson and Krivo,

1993; Mayer, 2002; Flippen, 2004; Roscigno, Tomaskovic-Devey, and Crowley, 2006).

However, these negative outcomes are not always acknowledged. Neighborhood effects research demonstrates that “poor families living in places with more advantaged families are… buffered from the most negative impacts of poverty” (Sampson, Morenoff, and Gannon-Rowley, 2002;

Wen, Browning, and Cagney, 2003). Residential segregation thus both reflects and reinforces social inequalities.

Argument/Contributions

This study makes contributions to current scholarship by showing the effects of rapid urban development. The extended study of how social policies at the local, state, and federal level affect society is pertinent. With increased globalization, it is important to take into account the consequences of rapid economic growth, especially its geographical effects on cities. It is also important to study the marginalization of the sectors of the population that have been marginalized in the city—largely the urban poor. The social consequence of their spatial displacement brings to the forefront questions of inequalities in the face of development.

This paper looks at how governmental policies have shaped the spatial segregation seen in Puebla, Mexico. Based on the available literature on Puebla’s economic and social history, there is a clear historic precedent of state subordination to merchant and capital accumulation.

Building on the presented theories of power and marginalization, this study looks to address the causes of the “crowding out” of the poor in the city. Actions by the local and state government came to gentrify the city center by rendering it a bourgeoise space and contributing to the expansion of an international tourism industry. I argue that this produced a crowding out effect

that relegated lower and working classes to the peripheries of the city. In the latter half of the study, I deliberate the consequences of spatial segregation on the population. I argue that where one lives in the city is a crucial determinant of overall welfare—those populations segregated from the city center and concentrated in the periphery of the city experience negative consequences related to overall well-being. Further, based on interview subjects, Pueblans have highlighted awareness of inequalities and marginalization in the city.

Chapter 3: An Analysis of Policy and Legislation

Introduction

This chapter connects Puebla’s history to the scholarly literature on power, marginalization, urbanization, and space. As mentioned, Puebla City was built with a wish for the city to stand apart due to its pure connection to Spanish culture. The city itself started with a center and grew from that center. However, the mid-20th century transformation of the economy of both the nation and city caused physical changes to the center—both aesthetic and demographic. In this chapter, I analyze legal efforts to conserve and reclaim the center as successive efforts to “crowd out” the rival, working class users of the city center’s space.

In this chapter, I examine pieces of legislation and policy that have facilitated the segregation seen in Puebla City today—specifically, through analysis of those policies and laws concerning housing, city zoning, tourism, and development of the city’s layout. These laws, mainly economic in purpose, have worked to create considerable change in the social layout of the city. I argue that these actions by the local government have fostered the gentrification of the city center by rendering it a bourgeoise space contributing to global tourism. This gentrification of the city center space produced a “crowding out” phenomena.

Name Governmental Concept Year Level

Federal Law on Federal Establishment of city center as a 1977 Archaeological, Artistic Zone of Historic Monuments, and Historic Monuments implicating federal, INAH and Areas control.

UNESCO Recognition State Recognition of the Historic 1987 Center as a UNESCO World Heritage Site

Programa Parcial de Municipal City plan to reinvigorate 1992 Desarrollo Urbano economic interest in Historic Center

Plan Angelópolis State Establishment of modern tourist 1993/2013 center outside of Historic Center Table 3.1 Puebla laws and policies

Zone of Historic Monuments

The first legal pillar of the Puebla urbanization strategy is the Federal Law on

Archaeological, Artistic and Historic Monuments and Areas. This law was signed by President

Luis Echeverría Alvarez in May of 1972 with the aim of restoring and protecting historical areas

(Chapter 4, Article 2, 1972). However, it was not until November 1977 that 391 blocks of the

Pueblan city center were declared to be a “Zone of Historic Monuments” (Zona de Monumentos Históricos). This provided the federal patrimonial preservation statute that enabled the state of Puebla to “safeguard cultural patrimony” through providing credits and tax exemptions for property renovation (Jones, 1999, 1553).

This law impacted the jurisdiction that Puebla City has over the historical zone. Article

41 defines a historic monument area as “one containing several historic monuments related to a national event or linked to past events of significance to the country” (Chapter 4, Article 41,

1972). This designation affected approximately 2,619 buildings within the zones of Puebla City

(Jones, 1999,1552). The enactment of this law, above all, empowered the National Institute of

Anthropology and History “to prevent archaeological plunder” and to “preserve the cultural heritage” of Mexico. The law itself stated, “The National Institute of Anthropology and History…shall organize or authorize the establishment of civil associations, local committees and groups of rural dwellers as auxiliary bodies…” (Chapter 1, Article 2, 1972). In Article 7, the law established the National Institute of Anthropology and History as the body responsible for

giving permission to the “States, territories and municipalities” wishing to restore and conserve these federally-established historic monuments. This empowered the National Institute for the monitoring and potential halting of any changes to the zones it deemed historic. This allowed federal intervention in the city’s future development and planning.

Image 3.1: Map of central Puebla, showing the Zone of Historic Monuments (Jones, 1999, 1550)

The law represented historical conservation as in the social interest for the betterment of the nation. As Article 2 states:

“Research on the protection, conservation, restoration and recovery of archaeological, artistic and historic monuments and areas containing monuments are in the public interest”1

Here, the federal government emphasized the importance of preservation of historic areas. The law goes on to authorize this preservation to “prevent archaeological plunder and preserve the cultural heritage of the nation” (Chapter 1, Article 2, 1972).

1 Translation: “Es de utilidad pública, la investigación, protección, conservación, restauración y recuperación de los monumentos arqueológicos, artísticos e históricos y de las zonas de monumentos.”

This law did not explicitly state what cultural heritage entails. The articles do, however, specify that archaeological sites, historical documents, and buildings are the “inalienable and imprescriptible property of the nation” (Chapter 3, Article 27, 1972). Article 35 states:

“All property linked with the nation’s history from the time of the establishment of Hispanic culture in the country shall be considered historic monuments, according to the terms of the relevant declaration or by the determination of the Law.”2

Here, the law makes references to the European arrival to the region as a marker of historical significance. There are no references to pre-colonial architecture or culture as deserving of historical preservation. The “culture” stated to be in the public interest to retain is clearly rooted in colonization. Article 36 goes on to clarify that buildings designated as historic monuments as those:

“constructed from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, and intended to be used: as churches...for the administration, propagation, teaching or practice of a religious faith; for education...for public service...and for the purposes of the civil and military authorities.”3

Here, the Hispanic culture to be preserved is further delineated and specified. The law makes clear the religious, educational, and militaristic cultural ties that are to be kept by way of the historical zoning.

The legal framing of patrimonial culture had a number of consequences beyond its implicit Eurocentrism. It provided a legal mechanism for different districts and states to specify what “cultural capital” (Bourdieu, 1986) they possessed related to a colonial history. This

2 Translation: “Son monumentos históricos los bienes vinculados con la historia de la nación, a partir del establecimiento de la cultura hispánica en el país, en los términos de la declaratoria respectiva o por determinación de la Ley.” 3 Translation: “Los inmuebles construidos en los siglos XVI al XIX, destinados a templos y sus anexos; arzobispados, obispados y casas curales; seminarios, conventos o cualesquiera otros dedicados a la administración, divulgación, enseñanza o práctica de un culto religioso; así como a la educación y a la enseñanza, a fines asistenciales o benéficos; al servicio y ornato públicos y al uso de las autoridades civiles y militares.”

became the basis for a symbolic monopoly. They used this monopoly to control, market, and develop tourism oriented towards international and domestic audiences.

UNESCO Recognition

In December of 1987, the Historic Center of Puebla was officially inscribed as a World

Heritage Site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO). According to the World Heritage Convention website, to be included on the list of

World Heritage sites, the nomination must be of “outstanding universal value” and meet certain criteria. These criteria, explained in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the

World Heritage Convention, are a set of 10 standards. The potential site must meet at least one

(UNESCO, Criteria).

The report of the eleventh session of the World Heritage Committee (December 11,

1987) outlines the nomination process of 41 new cultural and natural properties on the World

Heritage List. Various cultural centers from across the world are included in this list. The state of

Mexico submitted five historical sites for consideration, including the Historic Center of Puebla

(Report of the World Heritage Committee, 1988, 7). The city center was approved by the meeting of two criteria for selection: ii and iv.

Criterion ii states that a site must “exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design” (UNESCO, Criteria). The selection committee placed great consideration on Puebla’s retention of its 16th-century Spanish ties. Noting the “fusion of European and indigenous styles” the organization acknowledged the

colonial influence in the physical layout of the city center. The criterion states the urban design based on a Renaissance grid plan that is seen in Puebla has also been utilized in colonial sites across Mexico.

Image 3.2: Street in Puebla Center. Note: the colonial style of the buildings (Source: Botha’s Boots, 2011)

Criterion iv states that a site must “be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history” (UNESCO, Criteria). In the criterion explanation, the organization notes specific architectural works that the Historic Center of Puebla holds.

As an untouched urban network, the Historic Centre of Puebla is composed of major religious buildings such as the Cathedral, the churches of Santo Domingo, San Francisco, and the Jesuit Church, superb palaces including the old archbishop’s palace, the Palafox Library, the university, and many houses whose walls are covered with gaily coloured tiles (azulejos). (UNESCO, Historic Centre of Puebla)

Here, the physical beauty of the Historic Center is emphasized. Through its addition to the list of

World Heritage Sites, the city of Puebla was able to more easily retain the aesthetic integrity of the past. The majority of buildings noted by the organization are religious buildings, cathedrals

or palaces. The Spanish culture and Catholic religion illustrated considerable influence in the region— an influence considered significant enough for preservation by UNESCO.

However, this Spanish colonial architecture was the only part of Puebla that the World

Heritage Site selection committee wanted to preserve. The report of the committee’s session noted:

“...the complementarity of the colonial city of Puebla and of the Pre-Hispanic site of Cholula had been weakened by the urbanization of the area and that it was therefore not possible in the present circumstances to proceed with a joint inscription. Consequently, the historic centre of Puebla alone was inscribed on the World Heritage List.” (Report of the World Heritage Committee, 1988, 7)

This decision further exemplifies the organization’s focus on the 16th-century culture of the city.

The urbanization that is noted in the report refers to the industrialization of the city in the mid

20th century. The World Heritage Site selection committee wanted to focus on the conservation of the colonial architecture and culture of the city. The organization exhibits a preference for the integrity that the pre-industrial Historic Center provided, and voted to invest $42,000 in the training of specialists responsible for the conservation of the Mexican sites (Report of the World

Heritage Committee, 1988, 16).

The UNESCO World Heritage Site designation makes clear the definition of cultural capital it favored. The Spanish colonial aspects of the city center were preferred by the organization for preservation efforts. This decision allowed for the construction and reformation of a valuable colonial center that prepared the way for investment and global tourism.

Image 3.3: Plaza de los sapos--A revitalized UNESCO area near the center (Soure: Trip Advisor)

Programa Parcial de Desarrollo Urbano, Mejoramiento, Conservación e Integración del

Paseo del Río San Francisco

In the 1990s, the city of Puebla embarked on a series of efforts to reclaim the Historic

City center whose touristic and investment value was elevated by the UNESCO designation.

These efforts were made in conjunction with the need to continue the expansion and modernization of the city as a whole. This led to two main municipal programs that stimulated drastic changes in the landscape of the city. These were intentional efforts to retain the colonial culture of the Historic Center by relocating the commercial markets.

In June 1992, the city of Puebla first approved the Program of Urban Development

(Programa de Desarrollo Urbano de la Ciudad de Puebla). This program, developed by the Historic Center Council (CCH), outlines the need to “apply new and vigorous actions that reinvent the growing and rigorous urban decay” of the city center (García Téllez, 2006, 111).

The program goes on to list eight primary causes for the “decay” seen in the city center, including physical decay, contamination, and inadequate housing. The cause most addressed by the program, though, is the “lack of modern economic activities and the high productivity that

sustains the demand of the [historic] zone” (García Téllez, 2006, 111). Though the focus of this program is urban development, the rhetoric of the place still fetishizes the Historic Center. The program diagnoses, as well, the physical problems that needed addressing in order to reinvigorate interest in the center. Further, this program moves the city towards a focus on economic development by tourism. The need for “modern economic activities” is for the creation of a tourist-friendly zone. This program feigns to include the citizens and lower-class stakeholders impacted by the implementation of this program.

In August 1993, the municipality of Puebla approved the Partial Program of Urban

Development, Improvement, Conservation and Integration of the San Francisco River

(Programa Parcial de Desarrollo Urbano, Mejoramiento, Conservación e Integración del Paseo del Río San Francisco). This program, part of a larger series of projects, specified the actions to be developed in the Historic Center in order to promote its economic momentum and its transformation into an international tourism center (Becerra, 2006, 8). Accompanying this project two years later was the Partial Program of Urban Development and Conservation of the

Historic Center of the city of Puebla. This 1995 program took a larger step towards the tourist-focused strategic planning that was introduced by the earlier Program of Urban

Development. The main objective of the program was stated as the “urban revitalization of the

Monumental Zone”. The program originally covered 26 blocks from the historic center and contained proposed projects of luxury hotels, restaurants, cinemas, the recovery of the river bed of San Francisco, and a convention center (Becerra, 2006, 9). Though the construction of these projects brought economic revival to the area, there were great social consequences. The construction of Convention Center was carried out through the eviction of between 2,000 and

5,000 residents in the first stage of the work in an unjust and violent way. The owners used illegal measures such as: cutting the water supply, cutting electricity, and the discharge of wastewater. The application of such measures was documented by local newspapers and the inhabitants affected (Becerra, 2006, 13).

Based on these two urban renewal plans, the city of Puebla embarked on an urbanization strategy that brought economic revival to city. Through modernization efforts, the city officials renewed domestic and international tourism to the center. Specifically, the spaces constructed attracted elite and bourgeoise audiences. These plans had the social consequence of pushing out, through violent measures, rival users of the space.

Image 3.4: Puebla Convention Center (Source: TransportaMex, 2018)

Plan Angelopolis

The state government of Puebla also took steps during this decade to make intentional impacts through the development of the capital city. In 1993, then governor of the state of

Puebla, Manuel Bartlett Díaz, announced the Angelópolis Regional Development Program

(Programa de Desarrollo Regional Angelópolis). This plan was to directly impact the future development of the Angelopolis region, located southwest of the city center. The institutions

mainly involved with the layout of this development plan were the Puebla Development

Planning Committee, the State Development Program, the Intermunicipal Conurbation

Commission, the Governorate of the State of Puebla, and the Angelópolis Regional Development

Program. The strategy proposed in this plan was:

“...to strengthen the economic infrastructure of the region, through investments in the industrial, commercial and cultural sectors, as well as to fully improve the quality of life of the inhabitants, through new investments in basic infrastructure, urban equipment and housing.” (Programa de Desarrollo Regional Angelópolis, Puebla, 1993)4

This program made explicit plans to revive the commercial sector of this area. Economic progress through industry was also paired with the hope to better Pueblan society: infrastructure and living.

Today, Angelopolis is a thriving metropolitan area. This residential and commercial area contains luxurious attractions like malls, parks, cultural centers, and the Estrella de Puebla, a

260-foot high Ferris Wheel, considered the tallest of its kind in Latin America. There are three universities: the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Universidad

Iberoamericana and Universidad Anáhuac. These modern attributes make the Angelopolis region a prime location for affluent residential developments.

In 2013, the state of Puebla released an update to the then 20-year-old plan. The

Actualizacion del Programa Regional de Desarrollo Región Angelópolis was a part of a larger state plan to update similar development initiatives started over the past two decades. The update was tasked with the purpose of “identifying the problems that have been established” and to

“propose solutions that lead to integration, equity and inclusion in our state” (Actualización,

4 Translation: “...fortalecer la infraestructura económica de la región, a través de inversiones en los sectores industrial, comercial y cultural, así como mejorar integralmente la calidad de vida de los habitantes, por medio de nuevas inversiones en infraestructura básica, equipamiento urbano y vivienda.”

Puebla, 4). Placing the state in a regional perspective, the report took a look by region into the environmental and demographic changes that have occurred along with social development outcomes. The report goes on to note the need for government intervention in the social development of the region.

“...for this reason the municipal governments have the opportunity to determine those locations that for its advantages in infrastructure, growth and economic vocation, as well as population structure could become localities that would bring basic services to more marginalized populations, decreasing distances and times of transfer and that allow them to be served with quality basic services close to them.” (Actualización, Puebla, 15).5

The city recognizes the growing marginalization and poverty that affects significant populations of the city. By determining those locations with marginalized populations, the city officials could expand access to basic services.

Conclusion

According to Jane Jacobs’ theory (1961), uncontrolled growth due to economic opportunity and economic attraction will inevitably lead to crowding out of rival users of the city space. The laws and policies analyzed above illustrate this. Through decades of federal, state, and municipal intervention, the landscape of the city of Puebla has changed drastically.

Beginning with attempts to reclaim and conserve the Spanish heritage of the city center, a gentrification effort has reinvented Puebla City as one with a strong colonial heritage. This colonial heritage is paired with a modernization effort in another part of the city: Angelópolis.

This created a dual-centered metropolitan space focused on the preserved past and the modern

5 Translation: “Es por ello que los gobiernos municipales tienen la oportunidad de determinar aquellas localidades que por sus ventajas en infraestructura, crecimiento y vocación económica, así como estructura poblacional puedan convertirse en localidades que acerquen servicios básicos a la población más marginada, disminuyendo las distancias y tiempos de traslado y que permitan ser atendidas con servicios básicos de calidad y cercanos a ellos.”

future. With these efforts to change the narrative of the positive parts of the city, the disadvantaged population is left without a concrete plan or future.

The urbanization strategy in the city of Puebla is twofold. First is the wish to revive and preserve the colonial city center. This effort, through designation of the center as a patrimonial cultural space, was successful in identifying the cultural capital of the center. The second was an effort to modernize the Angelópolis region. This effort diversified and revitalized the tourism industry in the area. However, this came at the cost of crowding out original residents of the area.

Chapter 4: City Prosperity Index Puebla City

Introduction

According to the United Nations Human Settlements Programme, a prosperous city is one that “provides all its citizens— without distinction of race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status or sexual orientation— decent basic services, quality education, accessible public spaces and citizen security” (CPI, 2018, 3). Puebla has embarked on many efforts to make the city prosperous. As noted in Chapter 3, in the 1980s the city introduced programs of urban development to reclaim and renovate the Historic Center and revive tourist interest into the city.

These economic development programs drastically changed the overall economic output of the city as well as its demographic composition. From 1970 to 1985 the annual per capita growth of the state of Puebla was 2.37% (Weiss, 2010, 8). Between 1970 and 2000, the percentage of urban to total population in the state grew from 30.7 to 50.4 (Garza, 2002, 29).

Despite city officials’ efforts to stimulate economic activity, all regions of Puebla City have yet to see the equal benefit of these economic and infrastructural advancements. The uneven and unequal development of the city has resulted in stark, visible differences within the municipality. This reinforces David Harvey’s theory of the effects of capital accumulation on inequality (Harvey, 2000). The segregation of the city has been noticed by both the national community and the citizens that live within the limits of the metropolis. In March of 2017, an online magazine entitled Lado B published an article addressing the segregation seen in the city of Puebla. The article criticized the development laws, especially the 1993 Partial Program of

Urban Development, Improvement, Conservation and Integration of the San Francisco River.

According to the author, the process of development has led to a gradual gentrification and

expropriation of homes in the neighborhoods El Alto, La Luz, Analco, Xanenetla, Los Sapos, El

Parián, El Barrio del Artista and San Francisco. The article notes, “the [city-claimed] houses that were planned [for development] were not completed and the premises of the commercial plaza are not occupied in their majority. Likewise, in the surrounding blocks, housing use in neighborhoods for lower income occupants decreased from 53 to 8%”6 (Paéz, 2017). The gentrification of the Historic Center has led to a clear migration from the area. This migration has been addressed by another local online publication Angulo 7. In an article published in February of 2017, the author notes that the city’s public services are “concentrated in the exclusive zone and the rest of the population that is not part of [this zone] is abandoned”

(Llorame, 2017).

In this chapter, I question the social implications of the segregation and marginalization that is seen in Puebla City. As noted by local media, the uneven implementation of development projects across the city has caused stark differences in resource availability. I argue that there are high levels of marginalization in Puebla City, and these have negative outcomes related to overall citizen well-being. I will show this by using statistical data acquired by the United

Nations Habitat City Prosperity Initiative. With respect to this 2018 study, I describe outcomes related to citizen well-being, specifically social inclusion, infrastructure, health, education, and employment.

City Prosperity Index

6 Translation: “las viviendas que se tenían planeadas y los locales de la plaza comercial no están ocupados en su mayoría. Asimismo en las manzanas circundantes el uso habitacional en vecindades para ocupantes de menores ingresos disminuyó de 53 a 8%”

In 2018, the National Institute of Housing Funding for Workers (INFONAVIT) released the City Prosperity Index (CPI) for Mexico. This project, the most extensive urban survey in the state’s history, was executed in conjunction with the United Nations Habitat City. The study was carried out in 305 municipalities of Mexico with the hope of its results being used by policy makers to create more prosperous and sustainable urban environments with better laboring opportunities and increased access to health services and educational institutions (CPI, 2018, 7).

The Index breaks down the results into six categories: productivity, development infrastructure, quality of life, equity and social inclusion, environmental sustainability, and governance/urban legislature. Figure 1 outlines the scale used in the study. The results are scaled by combining socio-spatial and urban elements with municipal information.

CPI Score State of prosperity Intervention Levels

80-100 Very solid Consolidate urban policies 70-79 Solid 60-69 Moderately solid Strengthen urban policies 50-59 Moderately weak 40-49 Weak Prioritize urban policies 0-39 Very weak Figure 4.1: ONU-Habitat City Prosperity Index Scale

According to the calculation of the CPI, Puebla has a moderately weak prosperity (56.02), implying that the city must strengthen public policies in areas where less favorable results are reported.

One of these low areas is that related to equity and social inclusion. Specifically, according to the Index, Puebla City struggles in economic equity. As seen in Table 4.1, the Gini coefficient of the municipality was scored very low. The Gini Coefficient is the most commonly used measure of inequality. The coefficient varies between 0, which reflects complete equality

and 1, which indicates complete inequality (one person has all the income or consumption, all others have none) (World Bank, Measuring Inequality). In 2018, the coefficient of the city registered at 0.46. This illustrates that within the city there is a high concentration of income in a small percentage of the population, leading to high levels of inequality. This is supported by the score given in terms of poverty rate. A score of 41.49 reveals that there is a high proportion of the municipality that lives with less than $1.25 each day. The gross rate of poverty in the city is

13.17% (CPI, 2018, 61). These findings are supported by a 2017 study conducted by the

National Commission of Evaluation of Public Policy of Social Development. The study found, out of 2,457 municipalities in Mexico, Puebla City was the second most impoverished with over

700,000 residents who are poor (CONEVAL, 2017). The office of the Municipal President of

Puebla noted in 2014, “There are areas with high levels of human development comparable to that of the more developed cities of world. However, there are also broad sectors of population in the conurbated areas under conditions of social exclusion and with very high levels of urban poverty, which shows the high social inequality in the municipality” (CPI, 2018, 36). The high percentage of those in poverty indicates that a significant percentage of the population lacks the opportunity of access to higher qualities of life, such as education, security, and overall social equality— thus continuing the cycle of high inequality.

CPI Score Equity and social inclusion (overall) 61.31 Economic Equity 43.25 Gini coefficient 44.70 Poverty rate 41.79 Social Inclusion 50.52

Housing in precarious neighborhoods 27.04 Table 4.1 (Source: UN Habitat): Puebla City overall equity and social inclusion

It is important to note that the score of “housing in precarious neighborhoods” stands at

27.04. This is defined by the Index as “dwellings which present one or more of the following negative conditions: non-durable materials in floors, without access to potable water or sanitation and overcrowding” (CPI, 2018, 61). According to the scales of prosperity set by the CPI, the score of 27.04 signifies that the overall living conditions in Puebla are very weak. This number indicates that there is a significant percentage of Puebla City’s population living in these unfavorable conditions. According to the 2018 study, 58.37% of housing in Puebla City is

“precarious”. Despite the city’s efforts related to economic development, these outcomes indicate that there is a significant level of housing inequality.

In terms of employment and productivity, the CPI notes that a city should provide “the generation of competitive and well-paid jobs, which allow equal opportunities and adequate quality of life for the population.” According to the report, from a spatial perspective a city should “efficiently administer the urban land and promote its compact occupation, in such a way that the concentration of economic, social and cultural activities represent a competitive advantage for the generation of jobs and increase in per capita productivity” (CPI, 2018, 41).

Although the municipality of Puebla has scored generally well in overall terms of productivity, there are certain indicators that are concerning and could negatively impact the livelihoods of the city’s inhabitants. First to note is the index of per capita urban product, under the category of economic growth. Urban product is a measure of the economic well-being of a municipality’s inhabitants in terms of the gross economic output. In 2018, the urban product of the city was

4,714.24 US$ per capita (PPA). As seen in Table 4.2, the low score of 37.54 illustrates that a large number of those living in Puebla City are unable to access high paying jobs. This is interesting when compared to the score of unemployment, which indicates that Puebla City has a large employed population. Puebla has an unemployment rate of just 2.60%. However, the low rate urban product suggests that these work opportunities could be generating a “very low productive value, or be of an informal nature” (CPI, 2018, 42). This is supported by a 2014 study conducted by the OECD named Measuring Well-Being in Mexican States. This study found that 72% of the state’s overall population work in an informal setting (OECD, 204, 23). The inhabitants of Puebla City may be employed at a high rate, but a large portion of employed workers have precarious jobs. As noted in Table 2, Puebla City scored only 47.60 in economic growth— a relatively weak score meaning that the city must strengthen policy in response.

CPI Score Productivity (overall) 62.03 Economic Growth 47.60 Per-capita Urban Product 37.54 Employment 68.74 Unemployment rate 79.28 Employment-population relation 58.19 Table 4.2 (Source: UN Habitat): Puebla City overall productivity

Despite the adverse outcomes related to social inclusion and economic growth seen above, the other indicators linked to social services (health, education, safety and protection and recreation) are favorable within the municipality of Puebla. The City Prosperity Index names a prosperous city as one that “provides all its citizens without distinction of race, ethnicity, gender,

socioeconomic status or sexual orientation, decent basic services, quality education, accessible public spaces and citizen security.” As seen in Table 4.3, the municipality scores 66.83 in overall quality of life which signifies that the social outcomes are “moderately solid and [have] a relatively positive impact on urban prosperity.” According to the CPI analysis, the variables associated with health, education, and security and protection are relatively positive. This signifies that across the municipality, the overall outcomes related to those variables have a similarly positive impact on the lives of Pueblan residents. Though various areas of the city may have unfavorable results linked to social services, the overall score illustrates a positive picture.

Nonetheless, the scores related to health and security/protection still present considerable room for growth. For example, the death rate for children under 5 years old is over 5 points below the national average (CPI, 2018, 56).

CPI Score Quality of Life (overall) 66.83 Health 61.87 Education 88.94 Security and Protection 69.01 Table 4.3 (Source: UN Habitat): Puebla City overall quality of life

Image 4.1 illustrates the marginalization that the city of Puebla experiences. This map, created by the the Mexican Office for Domestic Affairs, shows the various grades of marginalization that are spread throughout the city. 48.9% of the city’s municipality experienced high or very high levels of marginality. The map illustrates that the city’s most impoverished and marginalized are pushed to the city’s periphery.

Image 4.1: Grade of Marginalization in Puebla (Source: SEGOB, 2010)

Conclusion

In conclusion, the relatively weak score assigned to the city of Puebla implies that the city must strengthen public policies in many areas such as social inclusion, economic equality, economic growth, health, and security/protection. I have argued that there are high levels of marginalization and these negatively impact overall citizen well-being. Though the data are generalized across the municipality, they show that there are significant pockets of populations living in difficult conditions, enduring precarious housing, and working informal, low-paid jobs.

In her related theory of urbanization, Saskia Sassen writes, “Global cities around the world are the terrain where a multiplicity of globalization processes assume concrete, localized forms.” As illustrated by the unfavorable indicators scored by the City Prosperity Index, the growing inequalities between “highly provisioned and profoundly disadvantaged sectors and spaces of the city” bring up questions of power and inequality (Sassen, 2001, 40). As the previous chapter showed, the state (at multiple levels) has worked to redevelop the historic center for international tourism and Angelópolis for commerce and formal business. These urban centers account for

much of the growth and prosperity of the city, while informal sectors are crowded out and shifted to the urban peripheries. The economic growth hoped for by urban development projects since the 1992 Program of Urban Development (Programa de Desarrollo Urbano de la Ciudad de Puebla) has clearly not reached all. This point is demonstrated by the low Gini coefficient and low-scored urban product per capita. Though Puebla City scores relatively well in overall quality of life for municipal residents, the 2018 City Prosperity Index confirms the high levels of marginalization in Puebla City.

Chapter 5: The Acknowledgement of Inequality

Introduction

Puebla City has undertaken a number of development projects, but the effects of these have been varied. In 2014, the president of the municipality acknowledged, “there are areas with high levels of human development comparable to those of the most developed cities in the world, but at the same time there are also wide sectors of population in the conurbated areas in conditions of social exclusion and with very high levels of urban poverty, which shows the high social inequality in the municipality”.7 Though I am not studying the in/out migratory patterns of residents of Puebla, I am interested in their daily needs. Are there sufficient services provided to its citizens? If there are services, is there sufficient access to these services at the ground level?

In the previous chapter, I analyzed the outcomes of areas related to social inclusion, economic equality, economic growth, health, and security/protection in the city of Puebla. As analyzed in the previous chapter, there is noted inequality in the city of Puebla. At the same time, though there is favorable employment and the municipality scored generally well in overall terms of productivity, overall economic growth has lagged. Slow growth paired with the low-scored per capita urban product indicates that individuals do not have similar opportunities to access resources in the city.

Subject Age Gender Ethnicity Place of origin Class Neighborhood Occupation Colonia Subject 1 27 Female Puebla Puebla Middle Class Resurgimiento Cafe owner Lomas de Government Subject 2 34 Male Latino Puebla Middle Class Loreto officer

7 Translation: “Existen zonas con altos niveles de desarrollo humano equiparable al de las ciudades más desarrolladas del mundo, pero a la vez también existen amplios sectores de población en las áreas conurbadas en condiciones de exclusión social y con niveles de pobreza urbana muy altos, lo que muestra la alta desigualdad social en el municipio (Presidencia Municipal de Puebla, 2014)”

Estrella del Subject 3 54 Female Mestiza Puebla Middle Class Sur Teacher

Subject 4 49 Female Mestiza Oaxaca Middle Class Cuautlancingo Teaching Tampico, Subject 5 56 Female Mestiza Tamaulipas Middle Class Plaza Europa Professor Martha, Subject 6 47 Female Mestizo Mexico City Middle Class Fernando Accounting Table 5.1: An overview of interview subjects

This chapter examines the lived experience of residents of Puebla and their perspectives on social stratification and marginalization. In interviews conducted during my semester abroad,

I was able to gather data from 6 subjects. These subjects’ ages ranged from 27 to 56. There were

5 female subjects and 1 male. All 6 subjects classified themselves as middle class. 3 subjects listed their place of origin as Puebla while others named the states of Oaxaca, Mexico (Federal), and Tamaulipas. 4 subjects listed their ethnicity as “mestizo” among “latino” and “Pueblan” for the remaining. All 6 subjects named 6 distinct neighborhoods across the city that they currently live in.

I analyze these interviews based on five general categories related to socioeconomic life in the municipality. These categories were outlooks on spatial segregation, health inequalities, educational inequalities, employment inequalities, and personal/family security inequalities.

Through analysis of the subjects’ responses, I argue that while there are services and opportunities available to residents of Puebla City, the access to these services are not equal. I argue that because the access to services and resources within the city vary depending on location, the spatial segregation of Puebla is negatively affecting the lives of its residents.

In their responses, each of the respondents exhibited a partial understanding of segregation and inequalities within the city. However, not every respondent directly acknowledged the presence of spatial segregation. I attribute this to class privilege, limited

access to other neighborhoods, and social isolation. In a 2010 study on the spatial segregation patterns across metropolitan areas, Dwyer found, “when advantaged and disadvantaged are separated not only into different neighborhoods, but are also located in different parts of a metropolitan area they are even less likely to come in contact with each other, share resources, or live within the same municipality” (2010, 114-37). I argue that the lack of complete understanding of spatial segregation is a result of and reinforced by the spatial segregation of the city.

Spatial Segregation

The research subjects lived in different parts of the city. Respondent 1 identified their place of residence as Colonia Resurgimiento, a barrio east of the city center. Respondent 2 lived in Lomas de Loreto: an area north east of the city center. Respondent 3 lived in Estrella del Sur, a western section of the city closer to the Angelópolis area. Respondent 4 lived in Cuautlancingo,

Centro, an area located in the far northeastern section of the metropolis. Respondent 5 lived in

Plaza Europa, southeast of the city center. Finally, Respondent 6 lived in Martha, Fernando

(Mirador), southeast of the city center. All respondents have lived in the neighborhood for at least 5 years and at most 30 years. Image 5.1 locates the respondents’ respective neighborhoods in a map that shows the degree of urban marginalization in the city of Puebla. This map, by the

National Council of Population, was done with 2010 census data.

Image 5.1: Degree of Marginalization by basic geostatistical area (2010 census data).8

According to the map based on 2010 census estimates, Respondents 1, 2, 3, and 5 live in neighborhoods which experience medium levels of marginalization. Respondent 4 lives in a neighborhood with a high level of marginalization. Respondent 6 lives in a neighborhood with a low level of marginalization. The following images show the current layout of the respective neighborhoods.

8 Zona Metropolitana de Puebla - Tlaxcala: Grado de marginación urbana por AGEB, 2010

Colonia Resurgimiento Lomas de Loreto Subject 1 (Source: Google Maps) Subject 2 (Source: Google Maps)

Estrellas del Sur Cuautlancingo Subject 3 (Source: Google Maps) Subject 4 (Source: Google Maps)

Plaza Europa Mirador Subject 5 (Source: Google Maps) Subject 6 (Source: Google Maps)

When asked to characterize the people that live in their neighborhood (where their neighbors work and to what class they belong to) the answers were varied. Two simply responded “middle class”. Two others also noted middle class surroundings, but indicated that there were different places and classes of work. One described her neighbors as having a “a wide variety of different

professions and occupations.” The other noted “merchants”, owning their own business. Only one survey respondent described the neighborhood residents as working class, despite identifying herself as middle class. However, the respondent went on to describe them as “uninterested in the common good”9. This same respondent, respondent 4, did not affirm the presence of segregation. Another respondent did not offer a class for the neighborhood, but noted that many neighbors were teachers, stylists, and doctors.

The United Nations City Prosperity Index analyzed in the previous chapter indicated that

Puebla City had a large labor force in 2018. However, the urban product rate suggested that these job opportunities could be generating a “very low productive value, or be of an informal nature”.

Outcomes related to employment are key factors in evaluating the overall well-being of residents of the city of Puebla. The interview respondents all indicated that they were employed. 3 out of 6 responded that they worked as a teacher or professor. One worked in a government office.

Another worked as coffee shop owner, giving theatre lessons. And another worked in accounting. These middle class occupations coincide fairly with the perceived sort of work that their neighbors do. Respondent 1, who worked as a coffee shop owner, noted that she lived around people that did business. The government officer lived around people who provided

“services”. The respondents that worked as teachers gave varied answers. One characterized her neighbors’ work as blacksmithing, maintenance, and security. Another noted a “wide variety, but mostly professionals”. 5 out of 6 respondents traveled to work by car. These respondents’ commuted an average of 21 minutes every day to work. Respondent 1 travels to work by bus and has a 10-minute walk from the bus stop to the cafe. Respondent 1 was the only one to note her

9 “desinteresados por el bien común”, Respondent 4

financial situation as “fair” while the other 5 chose to describe their standing as “good”. In short, the respondents, who lived in different parts of the city, noted varied occupations and commute experience, though all self-identifying as middle class.

In terms of the interview respondents outlooks on spatial segregation, 4 out of 6 respondents responded yes when asked, “Do you think that the city of Puebla is separated by income?” One respondent downplayed income division, noting that segregation “will always be seen”. The other responded to the question, “I do not understand. If what you want to say that because it is a state with industry and sources of employment, that produces income for both citizens and the State, yes it does have influence.”10 Though all did not respond yes to the question, each acknowledged or alluded to the presence of income inequality in the city. Further, the response that it will always be seen can be taken as an even more direct affirmation of the presence of income inequality in Puebla and in other cities. Taken together, this indicates consciousness by most of spatial stratification based on income.

Five out of six respondents noted that they would they stay in their neighborhood rather than moving to another part of the city. Those that elected to remain mentioned themes of tranquility, comfort, and proximity to services. One referred to the advantages of being near things that are used on the daily such as the market, quick access to streets, parks, the children’s school. When asked to describe the best parts of the neighborhood, these five respondents noted, respectively: parks, proximity to the center, much space, and being a “place where I find all things that I need”. Another indicated that the neighborhood is “well placed” in the city’s layout.

In contrast, the one respondent that would move to “buy another house” noted that her

10 “No entiendo. Si lo que quieres decir que por ser un estado con industria y fuentes de empleo, eso produce ingresos tanto a los ciudadanos como al Estado, sí influye.” - Respondent 4

neighborhood is “not well known”. The same respondent said that the best parts of living in the neighborhood were the “tranquility, surveillance, and services” and that there is electricity and water. Despite these services, a sense of isolation could aggravate the need to move elsewhere.

Noting that the neighborhood is not well known can be analyzed as low perceived social inclusion.

In conclusion, subjects reflect an understanding of spatial segregation of the city based on neighborhood (wanting to live in particular places but not others), class composition, and income. Rather than precise knowledge based on demographic and statistical studies, these were vernacular, partial understandings of spatial differences and segregation.

Resource Availability

The availability of resources in the city of Puebla is an important factor in analyzing the daily lives of the city’s residents. The perception of health inequalities, educational inequalities, employment inequalities, and personal/family security inequalities are analyzed below.

Health Inequalities

The respondents’ recorded experience regarding health are varied. While 4 out of 6 felt that they had adequate (or, as affirmed by respondent 4, excellent) access to healthcare, 2 noted the opposite. Respondent 6 noted a lack of adequate access to public medical attention, indicating instead that there was access to private services. Respondent 1 felt that they did not have adequate access to healthcare and noted that it is necessary to travel to the center for adequate access. The question to gauge perceptions of health inequalities— if they felt that

medical attention is better or worse in another part of the city— yielded varied answers. 3 respondents affirmed that medical attention in some places is better. 1 respondent noted that medical attention is worse in some parts of the city. 2 respondents noted that it is “worse in some, better in some others”. Another noted that “it depends to which part of the city you prefer”. These answers acknowledge at least some degree of inequality in medical attention. This is noted, as well, in their own interview responses. In describing the level of satisfaction with medical care, 1 noted low satisfaction, 2 respondents noted that they were simply satisfied, 1 responded “good”, 1 very good, and 1 was very satisfied. This range illustrates the lack of uniformity in healthcare in the city. Respondent 1 noted that the satisfaction was good, but “a little slow”. This lack of uniformity is also noted when asked about the presence of good clinics in their respective neighborhoods. 4 out of 6 responded no. 5 out of 6 respondents were covered by some type of health insurance. 5 out of 6 noted going to health services at least once a year, another noted only once every 2 years. In sum, access to health services is not uniform. There is a perceived inequality between neighborhoods in regards to medical services.

Educational Inequalities

In terms of education, all respondents felt that their family had adequate access to education. 5 out of 6 respondents had the equivalent of a Master’s Degree, while 1 noted having some “studies of theatre”. All but 1 respondents felt that there were good educational opportunities in their neighborhood. One respondent noted there are good schools at “all levels and educational institutions, both public and private”.11 Another noted that there are university

11 “...todos los niveles e instituciones educativas tanto públicas como privadas.” - Respondent 4

scholarships. Only Respondent 6 felt that there are no good schools in the neighborhood. In comparing the educational system in their respective neighborhoods, there was little consensus.

Respondent 3 noted that “different sectors of the city offer different access to education”. Three others affirmed that access would be better in a different part of Puebla. Another offered that

“there are good schools in my neighborhood and in other neighborhoods, too”. Respondent 6 noted that the education in other parts of the city would be worse. These responses indicate that there is the perception of educational inequality within the city of Puebla. Though all affirmed that they (or their families) have adequate access to education, there is still some sense of hope that somewhere else in the metropolis the access is better. The interviewees did have a higher level of education than the general population as indicated in the City Prosperity Index.

Personal/Family Security Inequalities

The City Prosperity Index gave the city of Puebla a score of 69.01 in the category of security and protection within the municipality. This score signifies fairly positive outcomes though there could be improvement. This corresponds with the respondents’ surveyed perception on respective neighborhood safety. 4 out of 6 respondents felt that their neighborhoods were safe to live in. 2 others said that their neighborhoods were unsafe, with Respondent 5 noting that in the neighborhood “there's some crime as in most parts of Puebla”. This amount of crime was noted in the surveying of the respondents’ incidents related to crime. In the past year, 4 out of 6 respondents (or someone they know) had a problem with being robbed. 1 noted problems with vandalism. Another noted problems with being a victim of a physical attack. The respondents with the most incidents were Respondents 4 and 6 with 2 incidents each. Despite this, both

respondents noted that they do not think that other neighborhoods of the city are safer than their current neighborhood. Two other respondents felt that other places would be safer. Respondent 1 affirmed, “probably so, for example La Vista Club” which is an exclusive residential area located in the Angelópolis area of the city. 5 out of 6 respondents felt that other neighborhoods were less safe than their current neighborhood. In sum, interviewees highlighted a modest degree of understanding regarding security inequalities and the distribution of crime in the city.

Research subjects—with high levels of education, middle class employment, and residing in middle class or mixed class neighborhoods—recognized and identified multidimensional inequality within Puebla (such as income, health, security and educational inequalities). These vernacular understandings and perspectives took positions on key social indicators, services, and access to resources in their respective neighborhoods. This reflected diverse forms of socio-spatial consciousness that highlighted both individual experience and access to specific urban environments. Taken on whole, this socio-spatial consciousness reflects a partial, fuzzy awareness of the statistical measures of segregation and marginality discussed in Chapter 4.

Conclusion

Though there are varying perspectives on lived experience in the city of Puebla, there is a clear consensus on the presence of multidimensional inequality within the city. Each respondent acknowledged that Puebla City is segregated by income and class composition. This attentiveness to inequality was also transferred to the respondents’ outlooks on health inequalities, educational inequalities, and personal/family security inequalities. They

acknowledged difference in access to medical attention, access to education, and overall neighborhood safety.

Conclusion

Conclusions

The spatial segregation of Puebla is a phenomena that has been studied and documented through some scholarship (Monkkonen 2010, 2011; Becerra, 2008, Germain, 1996).

Modernization programs to reclaim the city center as well as increasing tourism have been analyzed since their respective implementation (Jones 1999, Téllez 2006, Cabrera 2014). This study examined the legal politics and social consequences of spatial segregation. This study analyzed state laws and public policies, statistical data from the City Prosperity Index, and interviews conducted on residents of Puebla City.

I have argued that the state pursued an urbanization strategy based on converting the historic center into a hub for international tourism devoted to marketing colonial architecture and

Angelópolis as an affluent space for commerce and elite dwelling. This “dual-centers” strategy produced a crowding out effect that relegated lower and working classes to the peripheries of the city. There are currently high levels of marginalization in Puebla that negatively impact overall citizen well-being, with pockets of precarious populations living in zones with difficult social conditions. Though based on a small sample of interview subjects, these Pueblans highlighted awareness of multidimensional inequalities in the city related to income, class, health, security, and education. Citizens reflect socio-spatial consciousness that highlights—in variable ways—different understandings of marginality and segregation in the city.

Limitations

In a future study, I would keep the current framework and methodology while being aware of the limitations of the current project. First— I would expand the research period and number of interview subjects in different neighborhoods using ethnographic techniques. I would also spend time in the state and municipal archives examining more legal documents, and administrative plans relevant to urbanization.

Contribution to academic scholarship

It is my hope that this study contributes to current scholarship on Mexican urbanization by focusing on the “dual-centers” urbanization strategy, multidimensional inequalities, and socio-spatial consciousness of marginality and segregation. This study brings together legal, statistical, and interview data to show how social policies at the local, state, and federal level affect society and can result in socio-spatial segregation. With increased globalization, it is important to take into account the consequences of rapid economic growth, especially the uneven geographical effects on respective cities. It is also important to study the marginalization of the sectors of the population that have been segregated in the city—largely the urban poor. The social consequences of their spatial outcasting raise questions of inequalities in the face of increased urban development across the globe.

Bibliography

Articles

Actualización del Programa Regional de Desarrollo: Región Angelópolis. Gobierno de Puebla. 2011-2017.

Aguilar, Adrian Guillermo et al. “Socioeconomic Segregation in Latin American Cities. A Geodemographic Application in Mexico City”. University College London. Journal of Settlements and Spatial Planning vol. 4, no. 1 (2013) 11-25.

“Alley of the Frogs”. Trip Advisor. https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g152773-d153796-Reviews-Alley_of_th e_Frogs_Callejon_de_los_Sapos-Puebla_Central_Mexico_and_Gulf_Coast.html

Amarante, Verónica. “Growth and Inequality in Latin America.” Poverty, Inequality and Migration in Latin Amerika, edited by Stephan Klasen and Felicitas Nowak-Lehmann, NED - New edition ed., Peter Lang AG, Frankfurt Am Main. 2008. pp. 21–58. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv9hj9fz.4.

“Annual report on the situation of poverty and social risk”. CONEVAL. 2012. https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/31504/Puebla_1_.pdf

Bayón, María Cristina et al. “The Cultural Dimensions of Urban Fragmentation: Segregation, Sociability, and Inequality in Mexico City. Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 40, No. 2, URBAN LATIN AMERICA VIOLENCE, ENCLAVES, AND STRUGGLES FOR LAND. March 2013. pp. 35-52.

Becerra, Virginia Cabrera and Lina Marcela Tenorio Téllez. "Programa Angelópolis en la zona monumental de la ciudad de Puebla, México". CIENCIA ergo-sum, Revista Científica Multidisciplinaria de Prospectiva, vol. 13, no. 1. 2006. pp. 7-14. Editorial Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México.

Becerra, Virginia Cabrera. "Política de renovación en centros históricos de México." Centro-h 1 (2008): 26-39.

Castillo, Eduardo González, and Patricia M. Martin. “Cultural Activism, Hegemony, and the Search for Urban Autonomy in the City of Puebla, Mexico.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, vol. 33, no. 1, Feb. 2015, pp. 52–66, doi:10.1068/d13001p.

Census of population and housing for 2000 (Instituto Nacional de Estadisticas y Geografia, 2000a) and the digital urban cartography of the same year (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Geografía, 2000b).

“Centro de Convenciones Puebla: La Maravilla Urbana de la Ciudad”. TransportaMex. 2018.” https://transportamex.com/destinos/puebla/centro-de-convenciones/

Corona, Beatriz & Navarro-Garza, Hermilio & Javier, RAMÍREZ-JUÁREZ & Méndez-Espinoza, José & Hernández Flores, José & Ricardo, PÉREZ-AVILÉS. (2009). “Rurales y periurbanos: una aproximación al proceso de conformación de la periferia poblana”. Papeles de Población. 15.

De la Pena, Sergio. “Proletarian Power and State Monopoly Capitalism in Mexico.” Latin American Perspectives, vol. 9, no. 1. 1982. pp. 20–35. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2633491.

Flippen, C. A. “Unequal Returns to Housing Investments? A Study of Real Housing Appreciation among Black, White, and Hispanic Households.” Social Forces. 82:1523–51. 2004.

Fuchs, Martina. “The Effects of the Crisis of 1994/95 on the Mexican Labour Market: The Case of the City of Puebla.” Urban Studies, vol. 38, no. 10, 2001, pp. 1801–1818. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43196605.

Germain, Annick y Mario Polèse. 1996. “La ecología humana de Puebla: ensayo de geografía residencial”, en Pérez, Salvador y Mario Polèse (Eds.), Modelos de análisis y de planificación urbana. Estudios sobre la evolución y tendencias de la ciudad de Puebla. Ciudad de México: Plaza y Valdés . Harvey, David. “The Art of Rent: globalization and the commodification of culture”. February 2001.Review of Sociology 28:443–78.

Harvey, D. “The Right to the City”. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27: 939-941. 2003. doi:10.1111/j.0309-1317.2003.00492.x

“Historic Centre of Puebla”. UNESCO World Heritage List. 1987. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/416

Hoffman, Kelly, and Miguel Angel Centeno. “The Lopsided Continent: Inequality in Latin America.” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 29. 2003. pp. 363–390. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/30036972.

James, Botha. “Botha’s Boots”. 2011. http://bothasboots.blogspot.com/2011/02/puebla-es-bella.html

Jones, Gareth A., and Ann Varley. “The Contest for the City Centre: Street Traders versus Buildings.” Bulletin of Latin American Research, vol. 13, no. 1, 1994, pp. 27–44. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3338699.

Jones, G & Varley, Ann. “The Reconquest of the Historic Centre: Urban Conservation and Gentrification in Puebla, Mexico.” Environment and Planning A. 31. 1547-1566. 1999. 10.1068/a311547.

Lassiter, Charles et al. “Diversity and Resistance to Change: Macro Conditions for Marginalization in Post-industrial Societies” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 9, no. 812, 1 June 2018, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00812.

Laurell, Cristina Asa. Three Decades of Neoliberalism in Mexico: The Destruction of Society. International journal of health services : planning, administration, evaluation. 45. 2015. 246-264. 10.1177/0020731414568507.

Ley de Fraccionamiento y Acciones Urbanísticas. Estado Libre y Soberano de Puebla.

Llorame, Héctor. “Lomas de Angelópolis desplaza a Ocoyucan; dos realidades, mismo territorio”. Angulo 7. Web.

Fundación y desarrollo de la ciudad de los Ángeles. Instituto Nacional de Historia y Antropología. 1998. MS.

Mayer, Susan E. “How Economic Segregation Affects Children’s Educational Attainment.” Social Forces 81:153–76. 2002.

Monkkonen, Paavo. (2012). La segregación residencial en el México urbano: niveles y patrones. EURE (Santiago), 38(114), 125-146.

Páez, Samantha. “Gentrificación en Puebla: segregación social y pobreza urbana en pro del turismo”. Lado B. 26 March 2017. Web.

“Perspectives on social cohesion – the glue that holds society together”. United Nations. 30 January 2012.

Peterson, Ruth D. and Lauren J. Krivo. 1993. “Racial Segregation and Black Urban Homicide.” Social Forces 71:1011–26.

“Production by German automakers in Mexico increased 46% in 2017”. Mexico Now. 17 January 2018. Web.

Programa de Desarrollo Regional Angelópolis: Cumplimos con Hechos. Government of the State of Puebla. 1997. Mexico: State of Puebla.

Report of the World Heritage Committee: Eleventh session. UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION. Paris, 20 January 1988. https://whc.unesco.org/archive/1987/sc-87-conf005-9_e.pdf

Roscigno, Vincent J., Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, and Martha L. Crowley. “Education and the Inequalities of Place.” Social Forces. 84:2121–45. 2006.

Sabatini, Francisco. “The Social Spatial Segregation in the Cities of Latin America”. Inter-American Development Bank. Sustainable Development Department. Social Programs Division

Sampson, Robert J, Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and Thomas Gannon-Rowley. 2002. “Assessing Neighborhood Effects: Social Processes and New Directions in Research.” Annual

Schteingart, Martha. Desigualdades Socio-Espaciales y Segregación en Ciudades Mexicanas. COLMEX-INEGI. 21 March 2013.

Telles, Edward E. “Structural Sources of Socioeconomic Segregation in Brazilian Metropolitan Areas.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 100, no. 5, 1995, pp. 1199–1223. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2782275.

Tovar Elsa, Patiño. (2004). “Periferia poblana: la desigualdad del crecimiento”. Papeles de Población. 10.

Watson, Tara, Gerald Carlino, and Ingrid Gould Ellen. "Metropolitan Growth, Inequality, and Neighborhood Segregation by Income [with Comments]." Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 2006, 1-52. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25067427.

Wen, Ming, Christopher R. Browning, and Kathleen A. Cagney. 2003. “Poverty, Affluence, and Income Inequality: Neighborhood Economic Structure and its Implications for Health.” Social Science and Medicine 57:843–60.

“World’s population increasingly urban with more than half living in urban areas”. United Nations. 10 July 2014.

Books Hamnett, Brian R. A Concise History of Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006. Print. Cambridge Concise Histories.

García Téllez, Rosa. Políticas de intervención en los centros históricos: caso Puebla (1982-2001). Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla. 2006.

Gauss, Susan M; Wasserman, Mark. Made in Mexico: Regions, Nation, and the State in the Rise of Mexican Industrialism, 1920s–1940s., The American Historical Review, Volume 117, Issue 4, October 2012, Pages 1271–1272, https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/117.4.1271

Harvey, David. Spaces of Hope. University of California Press Berkeley. 2000.

Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. 1961. Koch, Andrew M. Knowledge and Social Construction. Lexington Books. 2005.

LaFrance, David G. The Mexican Cotton Textile Industry and Its Workers. Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos, Vol. 19 No. 2, Summer 2003; (pp. 463-479) DOI: 10.1525/msem.2003.19.2.463

Mendoza, Marcos. The Patagonian Sublime: The Green Economy and Post-Neoliberal Politics. 2008.

Rothstein, Richard. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. 2017.

Sassen, Saskia. The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. 2001.

Sierra Silva, Pablo Miguel. Urban Slavery in Colonial Mexico: Puebla De Los Ángeles, 1531–1706. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 2018. Print. Cambridge Latin American Studies.

Snyder, Richard. Politics after Neoliberalism: Reregulation in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001.

Tutino, John. The Mexican Heartland: How Communities Shaped Capitalism, a Nation, and World History, 1500-2000. Princeton University Press, 2018. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvc774tz.

United Nations. World Urbanization Prospects. 2014

Wise, Carol. The Post-NAFTA Political Economy: Mexico and the Western Hemisphere. 2009. 10.1007/978-1-137-28787-8_77.